Challenge For Cause - Judgment Search Results

Challenge in This Appeal Is to the Award Dated March 22 Vs. Sheela and ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

appellants. Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge in this appeal is to the Award dated March 22, 2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal … Hodal, besides, doing agricultural work. His monthly income was about Rs.10,000/-.5. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by Mukesh. To assess the compensation, income of

The Petitioner Challenges the Notifications Dated Vs. Laxmi NaraIn ... ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Mohinder 2014.02.21 15:39 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.1631 of 2014 [2].The petitioner challenges the notifications dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 24.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the

Challenging the Impugned Award the Appellants Have Took Vs. Smt. Malda ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

are the same, for convenience and clarity rest of the facts are taken from RFA No.1219 of 1997.6. Challenging the impugned Award, the appellants have took up a stand that the landowners neither produced aksajra nor any

Challenging This Order in the Revision Petition Plea of the Vs. Suders ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

below came to the conclusion that examination of witness Ashwani Kumar was even otherwise required for advancing the cause of justice and ends of justice warranted that he should be examined. In short, the court felt that … be examined. In short, the court felt that this evidence is essential for just decision of the case.2. Challenging this order in the revision petition, plea of the petitioners is that when this witness had been given

Challenger Computers. Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Trade and Ta ...

Court: Delhi

the amendment would take effect was altered to 1st January 2007. 21. In Jayam and Co, a specific challenge was raised to the constitutional validity of Section 19 (20) of the TNVAT Act and in particular to

Challenge Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to challenge the Order No. 13 dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Calcutta, on several grounds.2. A preliminary

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Challenger Rubbers (P) Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC597

1. The issue in all the three Revenue appeals are same and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of three appeals by different OIA Nos. 11,...

U.S. Vs. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedure

Court: US Supreme Court

U.S. v. STUDENTS CHALLENGING REGULATORY AGENCY PROCEDURE - 409 U.S. 922 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. STUDENTS CHALLENGING REGULATORY AGENCY PROCEDURE

Farmers' Friend Mfg. Co. Vs. Challenge Corn Planter Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Farmers' Friend Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co. - 128 U.S. 506 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Farmers' Friend Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn

Belding Mfg. Co. Vs. Challenge Corn Planter Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

owner of the Hambrook patent and praying for relief. The Challenge Corn Planter Company appeared and answered. The cause was put at issue, a large amount of evidence was put in by the respective parties, and after … Belding Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter Co. - 152 U.S. 100 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Belding Mfg. Co. v. Challenge Corn Planter